>things are unsatisfying. >they're unsatisfying because we expect them to satisfy us

>things are unsatisfying
>they're unsatisfying because we expect them to satisfy us
>it's possible to stop expecting this
>the way to stop expecting this is through systematic training of the mind, by meditating to go through every experience and recognize that it is unsatisfying
how exactly do you refute this? seems like common sense.

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You don't

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do you think converting to Buddhism could help someone quit heroin?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, probably. I'm sure that if you just meditate on heroin long enough you would be able to quit.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You don't refute it. You consider it as one of the many philosophical traditions available to you thanks to the information you can access, meditate (lol) on whether or not you agree and, if you can't find a reason to disagree, you incorporate the parts that you find attractive/beneficial into your own personal philosophy.
    You can and should do the same with all other religions/philosophical schools. They all have a little something to teach us or some unqiue insights, although I would suggest not jumping wholesale into the more metaphysical/superstitious aspects of religion just for the sake of identity because that's a one-way ticket to closing your mind off to new information. You can think of Jesus as an important philosopher who espoused communalism, social responsibility (despite himself being a religious criminal and de facto israelitesih heretic) and forgiveness as a means of assuaging social conflicts through the moral imperative of avoiding the destructive cycle of violence. You can believe all that without also thinking he was the literal son of the israeli god.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why not instead strive to give yourself all the means to have power over your reality and make yourself as happy as possible? sounds much cooler and more fun than training yourself to be passive and to not care and not try

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because that's a childish fantasy which will always fail. also does my rendition of the four noble truths even imply not caring or not trying?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >we don't care
        >but we do care when it's possible
        so is buddhism just stoicism or what

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think the way Buddhists see it is they aren't necessarily training themselves to be passive and not care about reality through meditation, but rather to be calm and capable of navigating the suffering of life without being consumed by it. In that way, they give themselves power over their own mind and more control over their emotions which keeps them from being crippled by things like depression or likely-fruitless endeavours. This, I think they'd contend, is the first step toward being able to influence the world around you in the only meaningful way possible: by recognizing what you can/can't influence and having the proper clarity of mind/emotional stability to influence those things. For attempting to influence things that you can't possibly influence without ever recognizing that could drive someone to depression, frustration or even ruin.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sounds like stoicism

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, Stoicism is essentially western Buddhism and may have even been influenced by it as there is some evidence that "gymnosophists" had followed some of the remnants of Alexander's army as they left (or remained in) India/Central asia and had some interactions with prominent Greeks. They're very similar and other similar strains of thought are not unheard of in Europe, particularly in the Greek/israeli world, each one kinda having a different level of ascetic intensity. Some good examples would be the Pythagoreans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism) or the Therapeutae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism is more similar to Epicureanism. Stoicism is all about doing your le duty at the cost of suffering.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fair enough, I don't see them as too dissimilar frankly but I guess the emphasis on materialism/"hedonism" in Epicurianism does indeed make it closer to Buddhism than Stoicism does. Again, I don't see them as too dissimilar despite their obvious differences. All of them focus on reducing suffering by lowering expectations, rejecting material wealth as a personal goal, training one's mind/body to be able to cope with the world and moderation/simple living.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >why not instead strive to give yourself all the means to have power over your reality and make yourself as happy as possible?
      The Devas do this. Eventually it all comes tumbling down. Of course, you can always climb back up but consider the following: How many times do you climb the tower of heaven before you get sick of it entirely?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The fact it is necessary to seethe that there people who do not follow their way, yet are comparably satisfied.

      Of course, like all major religions, when you substantively criticise their essence, the priests come in to threaten you with hell- Buddhism is no different, with all its narakas.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you just accept that life is suffering you will never have the moral confidence to improve life on earth. We must always move to relieve suffering by improving technology so we progress as a species. Buddha said that life was suffering, and for centuries all asia did was suffer under totalitarian dynasties.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but the idea that we must reduce suffering on earth is the cause of all the suffering on earth

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, the idea that we must reduce suffering is driving people to invent ways to manufacture insulin, create great amounts of food that can withstand common diseases and bring us to far away family by flying an airplane halfway across the world. Our standard of living is so astronomically higher than even a 100 years ago, let alone 1000. We are able to talk about important issues with the entire planet because smart people invented the internet to relieve suffering. Wanting to relieve suffering is why we donate to charity and help our neighbor when they need help.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This is what Osho thinks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I looked him briefly and he reminds me a bit of a buddhist Aristotle. I like that but I could do without the mysticism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People need some level of internal contentment, otherwise the chase for more becomes endless.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Raising your standard of living just makes you need that higher standard of living to feel satisfied, now people kill themselves at record levels. If we didn't have the drive to create technology or make life easier through agriculture, there would be no need for insulin because diabetics would simply die as nature intended, instead we artificially extend their lifespan until they're 90 years old and can barely movie.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'd rather have people experiencing life and choosing to drop out than have half of everyone's children die because of a bad harvest every x years. Letting sick people just die because it's what "nature intented" is just naked nihilism and you would never have this opinion if you were diabetic yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In other words you believe "experiencing life" is inherently valuable because...? just "being alive" isn't valuable.
            >you would never have this opinion if you were diabetic yourself.
            not true and if it is, then that's the problem that meditation is supposed to remove

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Life is more valuable than death, it's all the experience of the universe you are ever gonna get according to the evidence that you yourself have sensed so far. If you believe life to not be better than death, why aren't you dead?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            cont: By even having this conversation you must see value in it, something that can only be of value while you are alive to experience it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not one thing, obviously I'm not going to stop pissing and shitting after realizing it doesn't make a difference whether I'm alive or dead because it isn't actually me that keeps pissing and shitting, trying to kill myself or putting way too much effort into not talking into anyone just because they aren't either valuable or valueless would just be pointless and probably impossible because it would require changing not just my ego but my entire body and everything in my brain

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are you. The body you inhabit, and the mind that makes your consciousness, your lived experience. To deny your very self is absolute madness for you exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            WHY is life more valuable than death?
            >why aren't you dead
            because if I was I wouldn't be talking to you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because being alive means you experience, and being dead means you don't. To live is to choose to be alive. You claim that life is not better, yet you live.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >to live is to choose to be alive
            no it isn't. what exactly here is choosing to be alive? the idea that your conscious self has this much control is idiotic, the only reason it was even invented is to understand things, not to do things. Your limbic system and shit has all that under control, and I doubt you would say an animal (which what 90% of you are) has enough agency to "choose" to be alive. anyway you're basically just repeating yourself because obviously being alive means you experience, the question is why is experience valuable in itself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can literally plunge a knife into your brain at any moment, you have a kitchen nearby. There are millions of ways accessible to every human being to end their biological function at any moment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In order to do that I would have to convince myself that doing so would be worthwhile, which would be idiotic. It makes no difference if I'm alive or dead. Especially because I would have to be extremely strongly convinced to do it. Yes I theoretically COULD bite my finger off, but your brain physically stops you from doing it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because the nature of the brain is to want to live you absolute buffoon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're anthropromorphizing the brain, 90% of it isn't a man and isn't conscious. Do ants "want' to follow pheromones? no they just do it.

            And even if I accept that the brain "wants" to be alive it changes literally nothing because I am not those parts of my brain and that has nothing to do with me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And I should add that the brain doesn't even know what "being alive" is, that is a concept that only exists within your consciousness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The brain will always try to stay alive, because that is the biological imperative of living things. If living things didn't have impulses to stay alive, they would die. Life as it is wouldn't exist because there is no drive to live, to eat, to mate, to create. The very nature of life is that it tries to sustain itself. This is observable from amoebas to sperm whales.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok well I don't necessarily agree with that but I'm not going to bother arguing that you're wrong because as I said it literally makes no difference to anything I'm saying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Do ants "want' to follow pheromones?
            Yes.
            >90% of it isn't a man and isn't conscious.
            The subconscious does not exist. There is no distinction between the rational and the pararational. Much of what you assume to be the case is mere hallucination. The physical and metaphysical are far simpler and more mundane than you take them to be, however intertwined with the brushstrokes of your mind, the world as you know it comes to be.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By being satisfied.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You should watch the documentary of the monk that is depressed.
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5447880/

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you can't, the only responses I see here and other places online are either childish tantrums, coping, denial, petty nitpicking, word games, or feigning bravado.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Trying to sell a board full of fat-ass shut-in suburban moron little kids on the idea of not wanting so many things and wanting them so badly is not going to pay off.
    It takes a fully developed brain to realize that their real dad is never going to come back and make them behave and exercise and these fake-school-diagnosis lard cubes have 5-7 years to go before they get one of those, and like 25% of them are going to blap themselves around the time it becomes possible (not that anyone will care).

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By the power of your hand, O God,
    destroy those who look to this world for their reward.
    But satisfy the hunger of your treasured ones.
    May their children have plenty,
    leaving an inheritance for their descendants.
    Because I am righteous, I will see you.
    When I awake, I will see you face to face and be satisfied.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I, a prince, know all about suffering
    >I know this because I left my palace and sat under a tree for a while
    >The vast majority of my followers have never even tried to understand my alleged teachings and just treat my religion as some witch-doctor tier magical wish granting service, or as a way to pretend that they're 'totally spiritual you guise!', depending on whether they're from East Asia or the West.
    I've no need to refute it, even at its strongest it's an unprovable faith statement, and looking at it any other way makes it look even more moronic than the average unprovable faith statement.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I, a prince, knew nothing of suffering as I had lived a sheltered existence with everything provided to me
      >However, I experienced it firsthand after leaving the palace and seeing the suffering of others from which I had been sheltered
      >Seeing this shocked me and ripped me from my complacency, I began to suffer myself
      >I tried various forms of ascetic practices, as well as indulging in pleasures, in a quest to alleviate the suffering and existential angst
      >I found everything unsatisfactory, so I thought about it for a while
      >I meditated and came to the conclusion that suffering is omnipresent and there's very little to be done about it; indeed, suffering and our reactions to suffering often produce more, or different types of, suffering
      >Life is characterized by both suffering and happiness, however one should not strive for one over the other
      >Instead, we should come to terms with the existence of suffering and the fleeting nature of happiness
      >We should focus our minds to identify the matters over which we have the possibility of changing and those matters which we cannot, namely most forms of suffering, should simply be accepted and not ruminated upon

      I think that's more accurate. You're right that somehow, the people who followed this original philosophical school added in a whole bunch of superstitious nonsense which, imo, obfuscates some of the more important aspects of Buddhism. But then human beings like stories and fables, like the story of Buddha's reaching nirvana itself.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    hello.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's wrong to condemn all desire, even on the basis of a lack of satisfaction, since proper desire for eternal things like goodness always satisfies and refreshes the soul, never fails to do so. As a default rule though, what most people desire is usually something small and shabby indeed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's wrong to condemn all desire,
      It's not desire that's the problem, it's clinging.

      >I, a prince, know all about suffering
      >I know this because I left my palace and sat under a tree for a while
      >The vast majority of my followers have never even tried to understand my alleged teachings and just treat my religion as some witch-doctor tier magical wish granting service, or as a way to pretend that they're 'totally spiritual you guise!', depending on whether they're from East Asia or the West.
      I've no need to refute it, even at its strongest it's an unprovable faith statement, and looking at it any other way makes it look even more moronic than the average unprovable faith statement.

      >>I, a prince, know all about suffering
      He knows all about how luxury doesn't help because he's a prince. The physical pain stuff comes from the 10 or so years he spent as a beggar living among commonfolk and engaging in self mortification as a protojain.

      >>I know this because I left my palace and sat under a tree for a while
      That certainly helped but you're ignoring the decade or so of learning that he did, plus all of the karmic stuff in past lives.

      >>The vast majority of my followers have never even tried to understand my alleged teachings
      What the Buddha said is well documented and is studied in every school of Buddhism, pic related.

      >and just treat my religion as some witch-doctor tier magical wish granting service,
      I'm not sure why you're describing Abrahamism here, we're talking about Buddhism.

      It's clear that you lack even a surface level understanding of Buddhism. I'd recommend checking out What The Buddha Taught, and Red Pine's Heart Sutra. They're good intros for total beginners like yourself.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It's not desire that's the problem, it's clinging.
        I think for most people, both are huge problems, desiring after things that don't deserve to be desired, and attaching to circumstances that will never be permanent. But goodness even requires attachment, but such is a proper attachment, because goodness is the one good that never changes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But desire, expectation and satisfaction are completely discrete in my experience. You can think of them as related, or you can think of them as separate. That's how discrete things function. We are often confused by them because they are so discrete. Yet our mind tells us they aren't.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *